If it is so important to the left to stop Sarah Palin from running for President, then it is that much more important that she run - and win!

Opinions expressed on this site are solely the responsibility of the site's authors and any guest authors whose material is posted here. This site is not authorized or operated by Governor Palin, her staff, or any other candidate or committee.

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee’s hearing regarding H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not “reformed” at the expense of America’s senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.”[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.”[4] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As one commentator has noted, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase “death panel” in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a “myth”, its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to “drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what’s already occurring at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, where “government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.”[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed that “if the government says it has to control health care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.”[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding “that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

In the above video, panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Barack Obama’s government health care takeover, through the denial of care to millions who would be judged not fit to live, just as in Nazi Germany.

Historian Anton Chaitkin does a wonderful job of exposing Dr. Death, who then realizes he has other business to attend to, and bails out before he really has to answer the allegations. As you heard on the tape, another unidentified attendee tries to ask a question about Dr. Death’s support of assisted suicide, which is quickly brushed aside.

Dr. Death, is basically a coward! If you are going to have the sort of disturbing notions this guy has, then you should be made to sit and defend them. But I guess it’s hard to defend the indefensible.

A few weeks back Sarah Palin introduced the nation to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Barack Obama’s "health adviser" and brother of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel. In other words, Dr. Death.

When Sarah coined the term "death panels" she had Dr. Death in mind.

Now it’s been fun watching democrat/communists and ignorant Republicans scramble and try to say there are no "death panels." Or even more hilarious, try and claim the so-called "end of life counseling" wasn’t a "death panel" but a good thing. Hell, I’ve even seen politicians and people that I actually thought had a half a brain go down this road. Very disappointing, but at least it helped me learn who not to worry about listening to any more!

You see Sarah Palin, and others, never mentioned "end of life counseling "or said it was a bad thing. As some of the left wing correctly noted (yes, I know, there truly IS a first time for everything) Sarah herself had passed a resolution as Governor of Alaska urging seniors to talk to their doctors and family about end of life decisions, and living wills. Of course, these weren’t to be government mandated programs, she was merely wanting to make sure seniors know these services were available through doctors and attorneys.

Oh the democrat/communists had Sarah now. They had her with the strawberries!

Well, not quite. You see unlike most of the media, and pretty much all of the politicians, on both sides, Sarah had actually done her homework on Obama, and his radical friends. Remember that warning she gave you about who Obama was "palin’ around with?" Well, as we have seen with Van Jones, Jeff Jones, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Dr Death, and God only knows how many more, violent terrorist Bill Ayers was just the tip of a very large iceberg!

What we now know about Dr Death is that he, like many of Obama’s so-called Czars, is an absolute loon. I mean crazy, insane, perhaps psychotic. Dr Death is one of the main characters, in what would be a horribly cheesy SciFi movie, if he didn’t actually have the full attention of the President of the United States!

I know some of our more gentle readers get a bit weak in the knees when we start talking Nazis and the Obama administration, but other than early 20th Century American "progressives" who were very strong believers in eugenics, nothing and no one else can compare the group of truly evil men and woman that Obama has chosen to advise him on his Obamacare fiasco, as well as other misadventures he has planned.

Dr Death has been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Here are some of the various thoughts Dr Death has expressed regarding the administration of health care:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

(Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008)

Savings,, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"

(Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)

Yeah, you heard that right. Dr. Death thinks that other doctors should just blow off their sacred Hippocratic Oath, for the "greater good!" I mean why give quality care to the old people, who worked all of their lives and made American the great nation it is, when someone younger might benefit more!

Dr. Death wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. "Social justice" is a communist code phrase that basically means income or wealth distribution.

All of a sudden old Joe-the-Plumber isn’t looking so stupid anymore, is he! He too tried to warn America about Obama and his desire the "spread the wealth."

Emanuel believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia"

(Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy. Or children with Downs Syndrome. Gee, no wonder Sarah Palin doesn’t think very highly of this guy!

Here is how this obviously disturbed man justifies this:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"

(Lancet, Jan. 31)

Now, did you follow that nonsense?

Basically he is saying that because you might have benefitted from superior health care when you 25, you are no longer entitled to it at age 65, because, well, you benefitted from it when you were 25!

Most 25 year olds are indestructible, at least in their own mind! Unless they are indeed disabled, which would doom them to those "death panels," 25 year olds don’t need a lot of maintenance! Only a severe injury would normally see a healthy 25 year old needing a great deal of medical care and attention.

On the other hand, at 65, a productive member of society, someone who worked all of their adult life, and more than likely even as a youngster, will indeed need more medical care. I’m a long way from 65, but I’m also well past 25, and I can testify that as we get older, we find the need for more care!

Now in the sane world, the one we live in, someone at age 65, a person who helped make America the greatest nation on earth, someone who contributed a lifetime to working hard, rasing a family, and in the words of the communist, contributed to the "greater good", doesn’t deserve to be forgotten, left to suffer from ailments that are easily treatable in America, and have been for decades, simply so someone else can have treatment.

Communism is evil in all of it’s forms. It is immoral for the government to steal money from those who earn the money and create society, and give it to those who don’t. If wealth distribution is evil, then what can we say of arbitrary health care re-distribution?

As communism and socialism are simply different sides of the same coin, I find this quote quite appropriate:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Sir Winston Churchill

Dr Death believes in the so-called Complete Lives System. He has written:

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative:

Youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value..… When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

Another way to break it down:

Treating People Equally

1. Lottery

2. First-come, first served

Prioritization

1. Sickest first

2. Youngest first

Utilitarianism

1. Saving the most lives

2. Saving the most life-years

3. Saving the most socially useful

4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

If you have been following the news, you’ll know that some provinces in Canada already have monthly lotteries to assign patients to doctors. How’s that for establishing a death panel!

Lest you think Dr Death is the only disturbing person advising Obama, fear not, he has literally dozens of these loons ready, willing, and able to play the lead role in this bad horror flick!

Let’s look at Cass Sunstein, Obama’s "Regulation’s Czar." Now this guy will be turned loose on almost every facet of American life and allowed to force feed you his wild schemes.

One of Sunstein’s notions is that your organs do not belong to you, and that at your death, the state should be able to harvest your organs, for use elsewhere. Now on the one hand, it’s not like you will be needing them or anything, but there are First Amendment issues here. Issues about freedom of religion. Some religions simply do not condone the desecration of the human body at death.

Evidently, for democrat/communists, it’s "hands off my body" when they want to murder babies, and most feel it is wrong, but "let me at ‘em" when they want to snatch your body parts!

Funny, the pro-death abortion proponents are constantly screaming about "freedom of choice." Can someone please explain to me just how a democrat/communist’s brain processes that sort of logic?

One thing about it, between these death panels, assisted suicide lovers, and baby killers, one can really and truthfully state that the democrat/communist party is nothing more than a death cult that also wants to steal your hard earned money to do insane and unproductive things with!

Again, this would be fun to watch if it was just a bad movie, and you were kicked back drinking an adult beverage and laughing at these people. Unfortunately, all of this bunch has the sympathetic ear of the President of the United States!

Oh, and by the way, stealing your organs isn’t even CLOSE to being the most insane thing Cass Sunstein believes!

Not even close!

Like the Nazis before them, the current crop of democrat/communists that surround Obama are "nature freaks." And I don’t mean like someone who enjoys hanging out in the great outdoors I’m talking freaks!

In 2002 Our man Sunstein said this:

"Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

That’s right, this guy who Obama wants to put in charge of regulating pretty much everything you do, thinks animals should be able to sue humans! In another time this moron would be locked in a padded cell until he achieved room temperature!

I might remind you that Sunstein is a Harvard "legal scholar." Reason number 11,347 to never send your kids to an Ivy League school, hire anyone who has even been to one, and for the love of all that is holy, never, ever vote for someone who went to one!

But wait, there’s more!

Now I won’t bore you with Van Jones, the radical cop hating racist, self avowed communist, and 9/11 truther. Thanks to Glenn Beck, this guy has been sent packing, back to being an obscure, hate filled nobody. But he too is an other example of the sort that Obama loves to surround himself with.

No, I want to talk to you about Obama’s science Czar.

John Holdren is one of those really crazy people who sit around all day and fret about overpopulation. But, thankfully, this one has just the plan. This loon actually believes he can make the case that our Constitution would allow the state to force women to have abortions if they had more than the officially sanctioned number of children people like him, and Barack Obama, deem proper!

Holdren has also favored forced sterilization or forced contraception. He wrote this:

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

This guy has all sorts of schemes in his pointy Ivy League educated head. One of his brilliant ideas was to put sterilization chemicals in the nation’s drink water.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.

To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

This sort of thing brings us back to the discussion of eugenics, and the above video. In the early 20th Century, eugenics were all the rage in America. All of the so-called intellectuals were enamored by the notion. One of the really prominent practitioners of this thought was Margaret Sanger. Sanger, who had ties to the Klan, founded Planned Parenthood as a way to rid the world of unwanted and undesirable children. She was naturally keen on aborting black babies, and this is truly one of the darkest legacies of the democrat/communist party. It is estimated that as many as 50 million black babies have been murdered by abortion over the decades.

Sanger, and her contemporaries were of great interest to Adolf Hitler, which of course, brings us full circle, and back to the Nazis. It was the American "progressive" movement that inspired Hitler with is idea for the Holocaust.

Now just in case you think these totally out of the mainstream and completely insane ideas do not reflect those of Barack Obama, allow me to point out that Obama supports infanticide. This is a truly barbaric act that is practiced when another barbaric act, late term abortion, is botched.

Basically, this ritual is practiced when an abortion mill doctor performs a late term abortion, but somehow botches the procedure and the baby survives, or, as normal humans call it, is born.

What is allowed to happen in these cases, is the new born baby is placed on a shelf, or in some dark closet until he or she perishes. It’s as inhumane as it comes. If only he or she was a puppy, Cass Sunstein would allow the baby to sue!

Now Obama is famous in the Illinois Senate for one thing, and one thing only, and that’s holding the record for voting "present" more than anything else. And yet, he managed to come out of his comma and vote against "born alive" legislation that would have outlawed this inhuman practice every time a bill would come up for a vote. You can learn more here.

Here’s the bottom line, Dr Death, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Barack Obama, and a whole cast of dozens more of these whacked-out Czars like them, have control of this nation. These Czars are illegal and unconstitutional. We must demand their removal. Every last one of them.

But you need to remember that these people want complete and total control of health care in America. And if you think that people who are in favor of forced sterilization, or forced organ harvesting don’t already have death panels ready to decide whether or not you are "worthy" of health care, then you have another thing coming.

Get off the couch, get in the game. Get involved and come together with like minded folks around you. Go to a tea party. Join the 9/12 Project. But get involved and don’t let up until all of these illegal and unconstitutional Czars have been sent packing. Don’t let up until Obama and the democrat/communists drop Obamacare and it is dead for good!

Then work as hard as you ever have in your life to help vote all of these people out of office in 2010 and 2012!

Then we can get real health care reform.

Here’s a final video to help you ponder all of this a bit from our friends at Joe Dan Media: